Episode 2.1, "A Scandal In Belgravia"

[J.P.]

To be fair - ACD wasn't much better on continuity. Maybe it's infectious.

[bedelia1984]

What I find mad is that in the above interviews Moffat will dismiss Johnlock because John isn't 'wired that way' but then thinks Adlock is fine because Irene is 'mostly' gay. I have to wonder if he at one point had actually written the line as her saying she was 'mostly gay'- and then someone had to tell him it wasn't a thing.

 

I would think it was fine if he said overall he thought all people were just on a spectrum, like the Kinsey Scale, but I do wish he would settle on the same perspective for all the characters, that being the case.

[gerry]

I'm not sure I understand why he felt he had to define Adler's sexuality in any way if he wanted Sherlock and Adler to be infatuated? He leaves Sherlock's ambiguous so why did he need Adler to be gay, mostly gay, bi or hetero?

[bedelia1984]

I don't know if in some way he wanted to make Sherlock and Irene similar in that for both it was impossible to have a romantic interest in the other- for Sherlock because he was married to his work, and for her because she preferred women.

 

The way Gatiss describes the relationship about being more about an enjoyment of the game and an intellectual attraction makes more sense to me in how they set up the beginning of the story. But Moffat seems to have a different idea, as evidenced by his 'mostly' comment. It's such a big character point that I wonder they didn't agree on it before hand.

 

Then again, even though Irene was portrayed as a lesbian, I didn't get much sense of a deep relationship between her and the woman that she lived with. Actually, there was more chemistry between her and Sherlock in that regard, from what we saw.

 

[gerry]

I wouldn't be surprised if they disagree on other big character points which is why you see so much ambiguity in other aspects of the show.

 

You don't really see Irene with anyone else besides Sherlock and John to see any deep relationships. The most you saw with that other woman was Irene getting ready for her meeting with Sherlock and that was very brief.

[Arcadia]

I'm not sure I understand why he felt he had to define Adler's sexuality in any way if he wanted Sherlock and Adler to be infatuated? He leaves Sherlock's ambiguous so why did he need Adler to be gay, mostly gay, bi or hetero?

I honestly think it's because Moffat loved that line "Look at us both." Both John and Irene "love" Sherlock, in their own ways, but by making Irene gay, Sherlock is suddenly the wrong gender for either of them to have a romantic relationship with him. So the definition of "love" has to be broadened to accommodate both of them.

 

But from all appearances, Moffat then promptly went and forgot that he'd made Irene gay.

 

I could put it down to artistic temperament ... sometimes the ideas you want to present are so exciting to you, you shunt logic aside until too late. I feel that way about several of Moffat's Sherlock scripts, in fact ... he loves to write everyone into a corner, explore the resulting emotional turbulence ... but he doesn't seem particularly interested (or adept) at getting them out of the corner again. He tends to rely on the deux ex machina. I have to admit I enjoy being jerked around so much by the emotional content, that I tend to forgive the rather facile outcomes.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Very well put!

[Boton]

I think Moffat (more than Gatiss, actually) often gets trapped between how ACD wrote Sherlock Holmes and how he wants to write Sherlock Holmes.  (I'm taking Moftiss at both their word that they were trying to recreate the experience of reading the original at the original time for the modern TV viewer.)

 

In the original, at least for me, Holmes and Irene are clearly a thing.  Holmes is at minimum infatuated with her and possibly actually falling in love with her; while she holds herself aloof, I think she enjoys the game so much that she loves toying with him.  Plus, since she's a "well known adventuress," sex is definitely a possibility.

 

But then Moffat falls in love with this idea that, like Arcadia masterfully said, Irene and John are both the wrong gender for romantic love with Sherlock, but they both love him and would go to great lengths for him.  And that sounded so clever in his mind that he forgot that he wanted the basic Irene Adler story to follow the broad outlines of the original, and so [hand-wavy writing stuff].

[Arcadia]

Gawrsh. :blush2:

[Carol the Dabbler]

In the original, at least for me, Holmes and Irene are clearly a thing.  Holmes is at minimum infatuated with her and possibly actually falling in love with her; while she holds herself aloof, I think she enjoys the game so much that she loves toying with him.  Plus, since she's a "well known adventuress," sex is definitely a possibility.

 

Really?  My take (from before ASiB aired) was that Holmes was intrigued by her.  No one had ever beaten him at his own game before, and here was a woman doing it.  His view of female capabilities was being seriously challenged.

 

As for the "adventuress" label, wasn't it the King who used that term?  Like Holmes, I'd trust his judgment about as far as I could throw him.  She was a retired opera singer, which was quite scandalous enough for that era.  Besides, even if sex was possible in her book, I have my doubts about his receptiveness.

[gerry]

 

I'm not sure I understand why he felt he had to define Adler's sexuality in any way if he wanted Sherlock and Adler to be infatuated? He leaves Sherlock's ambiguous so why did he need Adler to be gay, mostly gay, bi or hetero?

I honestly think it's because Moffat loved that line "Look at us both." Both John and Irene "love" Sherlock, in their own ways, but by making Irene gay, Sherlock is suddenly the wrong gender for either of them to have a romantic relationship with him. So the definition of "love" has to be broadened to accommodate both of them.

Ok but why is that symmetry necessary for the narrative? They could have accomplished the commentary on different kinds of love without making her gay.

 

But from all appearances, Moffat then promptly went and forgot that he'd made Irene gay.

This in a nutshell is why I hate Moffat's writing.

 

It also seems like he equates attraction and love and I don't agree with that. You can be attracted to someone without love but he seems to think they are one and the same.

[Arcadia]

Oh, I don't think it's "necessary" ... I just think it's a point he wanted to make.

 

 

[Boton]

 

In the original, at least for me, Holmes and Irene are clearly a thing.  Holmes is at minimum infatuated with her and possibly actually falling in love with her; while she holds herself aloof, I think she enjoys the game so much that she loves toying with him.  Plus, since she's a "well known adventuress," sex is definitely a possibility.

 

Really?  My take (from before ASiB aired) was that Holmes was intrigued by her.  No one had ever beaten him at his own game before, and here was a woman doing it.  His view of female capabilities was being seriously challenged.

 

As for the "adventuress" label, wasn't it the King who used that term?  Like Holmes, I'd trust his judgment about as far as I could throw him.  She was a retired opera singer, which was quite scandalous enough for that era.  Besides, even if sex was possible in her book, I have my doubts about his receptiveness.

 

 

YMMV, of course.  When I read ACD: SiB, I pretty immediately thought that Holmes and Irene either were having sex or have had in the past, and that view was cemented by watching the Jeremy Brett interpretation.  I always thought that Holmes was smart enough to realize that Irene just barely "beat him at his own game" - she kind of hoodwinked him, but she hardly stole the crown jewels out from under his nose. I just never thought what she did would have risen to his attention as a shocking defeat, even if she was a woman doing it.

 

I actually totally believe the adventuress comment.  There has to be some basis for "our" Irene being a dom, and I think it is that the original was an opera singer who enjoyed a good time.

[Carol the Dabbler]

When I read ACD: SiB, I pretty immediately thought that Holmes and Irene either were having sex or have had in the past, and that view was cemented by watching the Jeremy Brett interpretation.  I always thought that Holmes was smart enough to realize that Irene just barely "beat him at his own game" - she kind of hoodwinked him, but she hardly stole the crown jewels out from under his nose. I just never thought what she did would have risen to his attention as a shocking defeat, even if she was a woman doing it.

 

I actually totally believe the adventuress comment.  There has to be some basis for "our" Irene being a dom, and I think it is that the original was an opera singer who enjoyed a good time.

 

Now you've got me curious.  Any particular reason that you thought they were having sex in the ACD original (before you saw the JB version)?

 

Much as I love the JB series, they did embroider things now and then, so I wouldn't take their interpretation as any kind of proof, especially since they were, after all, writing for a late-twentieth-century audience.  Even though their stories were set in Victorian days, they couldn't very well expect their viewers to (for example) be suitably shocked that Irene had been an opera singer (which had become a fairly prestigious occupation in the interim).

 

As for using "our" Irene as evidence, we *are* talking about Moftiss here, aren't we?  Their idea of good source material is Billy Wilder's movie.  (Not saying there's anything wrong with that, of course, just that Wilder isn't exactly Conan Doyle.)  I'm pretty sure they made her a dom because they thought that would be roughly as shocking to current-day audiences as opera singing would have been back then.  In fact, I believe they've said something roughly to that effect.  (In my opinion, they overshot the mark by a wide margin, but then I'm not a Victorian, so how should I know.)

[SherlockedCAMPer]

To be fair - ACD wasn't much better on continuity. Maybe it's infectious.

Mofftiss is using the source material. Why not use the inaccuracies as well? Or at least an updated take on the inaccuracies.

[gerry]

I don't know if I buy the canon source material argument. They pick and choose quite arbitrarily what canon to use in the show. John didn't have a baby after Mary died which is a pretty big difference. "Based on ACD material" ok but it's not overly loyal to it either.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I don't know if I buy the canon source material argument. They pick and choose quite arbitrarily what canon to use in the show. John didn't have a baby after Mary died which is a pretty big difference. "Based on ACD material" ok but it's not overly loyal to it either.

They use the canon source material then turn it on its head and shake it several times to get the tiny tidbits, of interest to them, out that they then use any which way they see fit and either play into the inaccuracies of Doyle or create their own as a tribute of sorts (subconscious as it might be at times). Because what is Sherlock Holmes if there wasn't silly or annoying errors with it?

[Arcadia]

Better. :p

 

I do think they were trying to stick closer to canon at the beginning. I wouldn't swear to it now though. I don't particularly mind one way or the other, as long as it's enjoyable ... and even Blind Banker has its charms.

[Boton]

 

When I read ACD: SiB, I pretty immediately thought that Holmes and Irene either were having sex or have had in the past, and that view was cemented by watching the Jeremy Brett interpretation.  

 

Now you've got me curious.  Any particular reason that you thought they were having sex in the ACD original (before you saw the JB version)?

 

 

 

 

Honestly, I think it was from watching Upstairs, Downstairs plus what I knew about the reputation of opera singers in the era. I knew that performers were considered to have loose morals, and Up Down kind of cemented it in my mind that the opera singer willing to sleep with an ardent fan was a Victorian trope.  It didn't take much for me to fill in the ACD blanks and assume that Holmes, being interested in music, could have been a regular opera-goer who became captivated by this lovely singer who was bohemian enough to intrigue him.  By the time he encountered her in this cheesy not-quite-a-scandal with the King of Bohemia, it was easy to imagine them toying with one another and then finally consummating his fascination/crush before she just kind of "escaped."

[gerry]

Because what is Sherlock Holmes if there wasn't silly or annoying errors with it?

I get your point but then I'm reminded of that saying my parent's were so fond of: "If all your friends jumped off a bridge then would you too?" Just because ACD had errors, why should subsequent writers repeat them? Shouldn't they want to improve on the original?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Better. :p

 

I do think they were trying to stick closer to canon at the beginning. I wouldn't swear to it now though. I don't particularly mind one way or the other, as long as it's enjoyable ... and even Blind Banker has its charms.

As I recall, it seems somewhere they said they had used the good stuff or the major ones and had only the smaller/ less known works left.

 

 

Because what is Sherlock Holmes if there wasn't silly or annoying errors with it?

I get your point but then I'm reminded of that saying my parent's were so fond of: "If all your friends jumped off a bridge then would you too?" Just because ACD had errors, why should subsequent writers repeat them? Shouldn't they want to improve on the original?

Some might repeat as way of an in-joke even if it is not always done the best. I would also agree that in most cases, such as the Sherlock stories, anything new should be equal to or better than the original. The series as a whole I would put as mostly better than the original in that it is easier to understand and some of the more mundane/boring parts (e.g. Study in Scarlet jumping to the US mid-story before jumping back to the UK) are omitted.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Honestly, I think it was from watching Upstairs, Downstairs plus what I knew about the reputation of opera singers in the era. I knew that performers were considered to have loose morals, and Up Down kind of cemented it in my mind that the opera singer willing to sleep with an ardent fan was a Victorian trope.  It didn't take much for me to fill in the ACD blanks and assume that Holmes, being interested in music, could have been a regular opera-goer who became captivated by this lovely singer who was bohemian enough to intrigue him.  By the time he encountered her in this cheesy not-quite-a-scandal with the King of Bohemia, it was easy to imagine them toying with one another and then finally consummating his fascination/crush before she just kind of "escaped."

... and dear old loyal, ever-so-Victorian Watson -- even if he suspected something was going on -- would not have said a word.  Who knows?

[Boton]

 

Honestly, I think it was from watching Upstairs, Downstairs plus what I knew about the reputation of opera singers in the era. I knew that performers were considered to have loose morals, and Up Down kind of cemented it in my mind that the opera singer willing to sleep with an ardent fan was a Victorian trope.  It didn't take much for me to fill in the ACD blanks and assume that Holmes, being interested in music, could have been a regular opera-goer who became captivated by this lovely singer who was bohemian enough to intrigue him.  By the time he encountered her in this cheesy not-quite-a-scandal with the King of Bohemia, it was easy to imagine them toying with one another and then finally consummating his fascination/crush before she just kind of "escaped."

... and dear old loyal, ever-so-Victorian Watson -- even if he suspected something was going on -- would not have said a word.  Who knows?

 

 

Oh, certainly not.  Watson is so proper in ACD that he wouldn't even marry Mary Morstan until she got rid of her inheritance, so there wasn't a socioeconomic disparity people would talk about.  He may have been dubbed "Three Continents Watson" by the readers, but sometimes I think he was more "Lights Off Once a Week on Thursdays Watson."   :D

[Arcadia]

Whoa, wait ... "Three Continents" was the readers' nickname? Not a name Doyle himself gave to his character? Well I never!!!!! Those Holmes fans, so nervy.... :-D

[Carol the Dabbler]

Here's what I said about that a while back:

 

As for the dear doctor, I believe that his "reputation" has been vastly overstated (perhaps mostly by former teenage fanboys -- no names will be mentioned!). That statement appears to derive from this comment of Watson's:

 

 

Her face had neither regularity of feature nor beauty of complexion, but her expression was sweet and amiable, and her large blue eyes were singularly spiritual and sympathetic. In an experience of women which extends over many nations and three separate continents, I have never looked upon a face which gave a clearer promise of a refined and sensitive nature.

That describes Watson's first impression of Mary Morstan (in The Sign of the Four). While I do not deny that Watson appreciates the company of women, I cannot understand how the above sentences would qualify him as a "ladies' man" (at least not if that term is meant to imply a "love 'em and leave 'em" type). He seems to be far more appreciative of Miss Morstan's character than of her appearance, and yet by the end of the story, he has asked her to marry him.

So while Doyle introduced the phrase "three continents," it does seem to be his fans who have read it to mean that Watson is a playboy.